Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive. FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.

The Scottish COVID Cancer Immunity Prevalence Study: A Longitudinal Study of SARS-CoV-2 Immune Response in Patients Receiving Anti-Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and anti-cancer treatment (ACT) may be risk factors for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and limited vaccine efficacy. Long-term longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate these risks. The Scottish COVID cancer immunity prevalence (SCCAMP) study characterizes the incidence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with solid tumors undergoing ACT. This preliminary analysis includes 766 patients recruited since May 2020. METHODS: Patients with solid-organ cancers attending secondary care for active ACT consented to the collection of routine electronic health record data and serial blood samples over 12 months. Blood samples were tested for total SARS-CoV-2 antibody. RESULTS: A total of 766 participants were recruited between May 28, 2020 and October 31, 2021. Most received cytotoxic chemotherapy (79%). Among the participants, 48 (6.3%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Infection rates were unaffected by ACT, largely aligning with the local population. Mortality proportion was not higher with a recent positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR (10.4% vs 10.6%). Multivariate analysis revealed lower infection rates in vaccinated patients regardless of chemotherapy (HR 0.307 [95% CI, 0.144-0.6548]) or immunotherapy (HR 0.314 [95% CI, 0.041-2.367]) treatment. A total of 96.3% of patients successfully raised SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after >2 vaccines. This was independent of the treatment type. CONCLUSION: This is the largest on-going longitudinal real-world dataset of patients undergoing ACT during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This preliminary analysis demonstrates that patients with solid tumors undergoing ACT have high protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination. The SCCAMP study will evaluate long-term COVID-19 antibody trends, focusing on specific ACTs and patient subgroups.

Development and early diagnosis of critical illness myopathy in COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly increased the incidence and clinical importance of critical illness myopathy (CIM), because it is one of the most common complications of modern intensive care medicine. Current diagnostic criteria only allow diagnosis of CIM at an advanced stage, so that patients are at risk of being overlooked, especially in early stages. To determine the frequency of CIM and to assess a recently proposed tool for early diagnosis, we have followed a cohort of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and compared the time course of muscle excitability measurements with the definite diagnosis of CIM. METHODS: Adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland requiring mechanical ventilation were recruited and examined on Days 1, 2, 5, and 10 post-intubation. Clinical examination, muscle excitability measurements, medication record, and laboratory analyses were performed on all study visits, and additionally nerve conduction studies, electromyography and muscle biopsy on Day 10. Muscle excitability data were compared with a cohort of 31 age-matched healthy subjects. Diagnosis of definite CIM was made according to the current guidelines and was based on patient history, results of clinical and electrophysiological examinations as well as muscle biopsy. RESULTS: Complete data were available in 31 out of 44 recruited patients (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.8] years). Of these, 17 (55%) developed CIM. Muscle excitability measurements on Day 10 discriminated between patients who developed CIM and those who did not, with a diagnostic precision of 90% (AUC 0.908; 95% CI 0.799-1.000; sensitivity 1.000; specificity 0.714). On Days 1 and 2, muscle excitability parameters also discriminated between the two groups with 73% (AUC 0.734; 95% CI 0.550-0.919; sensitivity 0.562; specificity 0.857) and 82% (AUC 0.820; CI 0.652-0.903; sensitivity 0.750; specificity 0.923) diagnostic precision, respectively. All critically ill COVID-19 patients showed signs of muscle membrane depolarization compared with healthy subjects, but in patients who developed CIM muscle membrane depolarization on Days 1, 2 and 10 was more pronounced than in patients who did not develop CIM. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a 55% prevalence of definite CIM in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the results confirm that muscle excitability measurements may serve as an alternative method for CIM diagnosis and support its use as a tool for early diagnosis and monitoring the development of CIM.

Study protocol for resolution of organ injury in acute pancreatitis (RESORP): an observational prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Survivors of acute pancreatitis (AP) have shorter overall survival and increased incidence of new-onset cardiovascular, respiratory, liver and renal disease, diabetes mellitus and cancer compared with the general population, but the mechanisms that explain this are yet to be elucidated. Our aim is to characterise the precise nature and extent of organ dysfunction following an episode of AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observational prospective cohort study in a single centre comprising a University hospital with an acute and emergency receiving unit and clinical research facility. Participants will be adult patient admitted with AP. Participants will undergo assessment at recruitment, 3 months and 3 years. At each time point, multiple biochemical and/or physiological assessments to measure cardiovascular, respiratory, liver, renal and cognitive function, diabetes mellitus and quality of life. Recruitment was from 30 November 2017 to 31 May 2020; last follow-up measurements is due on 31 May 2023. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of new-onset type 3c diabetes mellitus during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures include: quality of life analyses (SF-36, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index); montreal cognitive assessment; organ system physiological performance; multiomics predictors of AP severity, detection of premature cellular senescence. In a nested cohort within the main cohort, individuals may also consent to multiparameter MRI scan, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing, cardiopulmonary exercise testing and pulse-wave analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received the following approvals: UK IRAS Number 178615; South-east Scotland Research Ethics Committee number 16/SS/0065. Results will be made available to AP survivors, caregivers, funders and other researchers. Publications will be open-access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03342716) and ISRCTN50581876; Pre-results.

The impact of COVID-19 on systemic anticancer treatment delivery in Scotland.

Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on systemic anticancer therapy delivery (SACT) is crucial to appreciate the short- and long-term consequences for cancer patients and plan future care. Here, we report real-time national SACT delivery data from NHS Scotland. We demonstrate an initial rapid reduction in patient attendance of 28.7% with subsequent rapid recovery following service redesign. The smallest decrease was seen in breast cancer (19.7%), which also had the most rapid recovery and the largest decrease seen in colorectal cancer (43.4%). Regional variation in the magnitude of impact on SACT delivery was observed, but nadirs occurred at the same time and the rate of recovery was similar across all regions. This recovery reflected a coordinated national approach and associated patient and clinician support structures, which facilitated the creation of COVID-19-protected areas for SACT delivery in Scottish cancer centres enabling rapid sharing of successful and innovative strategies. The data show that these actions have limited the disadvantage to cancer patients.